[2012-01-08 20:08:09] <KingAragorn> Welcome to Tolkien Gateway's first meeting of 2012!
[2012-01-08 20:08:09] <KingAragorn> Mith, Amroth, Ederchil, Gamling, Hyarion, KingAragorn, Morgan are all present. Seregdae intended to attend, but is not here.
[2012-01-08 20:08:09] <KingAragorn> First up is me with "Can we make sure that articles in the index namespace are included in search results by default?" - Which speaks for itself.
[2012-01-08 20:09:05] <Ederchil> not really a discussable thing.
[2012-01-08 20:09:26] <KingAragorn> It's really one or Mith or Hyarion
[2012-01-08 20:10:03] <Mith> Yes
[2012-01-08 20:10:05] <Mith> Is the answer
[2012-01-08 20:10:09] <Mith> I can do it in about five minutes
[2012-01-08 20:10:18] <Hyarion> it would take me maybe 4.5
[2012-01-08 20:10:23] <Mith> If we move on, I'll tell you when I've done it.
[2012-01-08 20:10:29] <Hyarion> :p
[2012-01-08 20:10:32] <KingAragorn> Excellent :)
[2012-01-08 20:11:25] <KingAragorn> Next up is me with "How should we deal with long sections within articles? (i.e. Gandalf#Names) Possible solutions include:
[2012-01-08 20:11:25] <KingAragorn> just keeping the content on the article as normal;
[2012-01-08 20:11:25] <KingAragorn> moving it to a sub-page;
[2012-01-08 20:11:25] <KingAragorn> or employing the use of a scrollable DIV (along the lines of Tom Shippey#Bibliography)."
[2012-01-08 20:12:07] <KingAragorn> We should note that Amroth has brought up a potentially related question: "In regards to the sub-page option above, where should we redirect to?
[2012-01-08 20:12:07] <KingAragorn> Main Article?
[2012-01-08 20:12:07] <KingAragorn> Sub-page?
[2012-01-08 20:12:07] <KingAragorn> Header in the sub-page? "
[2012-01-08 20:12:19] <KingAragorn> I favour using a scrollable DIV
[2012-01-08 20:12:36] <Ederchil> scrollbox? that's really annoying to read.
[2012-01-08 20:12:48] <Ederchil> maybe a dropbox?
[2012-01-08 20:12:53] <Morgan> I never read things in a scrollbox
[2012-01-08 20:13:07] <Amroth> +1 to Ederchi
[2012-01-08 20:13:08] <Morgan> Yeah, dropbpx (like on Wiktionary) is better
[2012-01-08 20:13:38] <KingAragorn> A drop-box is a solution I didn't consider
[2012-01-08 20:13:42] <KingAragorn> But I like that too
[2012-01-08 20:14:09] <KingAragorn> With MediaWiki 1.18 we will have collapsible tables built in, so it would be easy
[2012-01-08 20:14:11] <Amroth> Is that just view/hide or something else?
[2012-01-08 20:14:31] <Ederchil> yes
[2012-01-08 20:14:55] <Mith> What exaclty are we proposing to show/hide? Entire sections by default?
[2012-01-08 20:15:04] <Ederchil> please no.
[2012-01-08 20:15:15] <KingAragorn> Incidentally, I believe that we will be upgrading to 1.18 soonish
[2012-01-08 20:16:40] <Mith> (I have done the default search thing, if anyone wants to check. I have added images and portals to the default search as well. All users can, however, customise their search preferences to search whicheve namespaces they choose.)
[2012-01-08 20:17:00] <KingAragorn> Ederchil, if sections aren't hidden by default then why would you propose the idea?
[2012-01-08 20:17:20] <Ederchil> I thought you meant all sections.
[2012-01-08 20:17:26] <KingAragorn> Oh no
[2012-01-08 20:17:27] <Amroth> I'm away, for a minute or two. Will be back soon.
[2012-01-08 20:17:44] <KingAragorn> I don't think that was the idea, just the long ones
[2012-01-08 20:17:53] <Mith> I don't like it.
[2012-01-08 20:18:05] <Ederchil> which raises another question: what is long?
[2012-01-08 20:18:27] <KingAragorn> I don't think that we need to define long
[2012-01-08 20:18:40] <KingAragorn> Gandalf#Names and Tom Shippey#Bibliography are long
[2012-01-08 20:19:11] <Ederchil> Gandalf#Names is just a compilation of a bunch of other articles.
[2012-01-08 20:19:18] <Mith> What's the gain, though?
[2012-01-08 20:20:45] <KingAragorn> Who is that addressed to?
[2012-01-08 20:21:24] <Mith> Whoever is in favour of collapsing sections
[2012-01-08 20:21:37] <Morgan> Scrollbox removed: http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Tom_Shippey
[2012-01-08 20:21:56] <Mith> I actually think that's better.
[2012-01-08 20:22:01] <Ederchil> Me too.
[2012-01-08 20:22:11] <Amroth> I'm back
[2012-01-08 20:22:29] <Ederchil> In principle, I'm in favour of not collapsing/scrolling.subpaging at all.
[2012-01-08 20:22:31] <Morgan> It's easier to get an overview
[2012-01-08 20:22:32] <KingAragorn> I was editing that page!
[2012-01-08 20:23:58] <Amroth> I'm in favour of 1 or 2.
[2012-01-08 20:24:10] <Mith> 1 or 2 what?
[2012-01-08 20:24:30] <Amroth> of KA's suggestions.
[2012-01-08 20:24:45] <Amroth> <KingAragorn>: just keeping the content on the article as normal; <KingAragorn>: moving it to a sub-page;
[2012-01-08 20:25:09] <Mith> I'm against scrollables or collapsible sections completely
[2012-01-08 20:25:35] <Ederchil> except maybe on adaptations if it becomes too long.
[2012-01-08 20:25:39] <Mith> I'm more 1 than 2
[2012-01-08 20:25:42] <KingAragorn> I hate sub-pages
[2012-01-08 20:25:44] <Ederchil> 1.
[2012-01-08 20:25:54] <Mith> But sub-pages can be useful
[2012-01-08 20:26:14] <Mith> It's better to redirect to a subpage than to a section of an article, which is what the Gandalf thing was about
[2012-01-08 20:28:30] <KingAragorn> What does everyone else think about sub-pages?
[2012-01-08 20:29:07] <Ederchil> I don't really like them.
[2012-01-08 20:29:21] <Mith> I'm not arguing for subpages here
[2012-01-08 20:29:22] <KingAragorn> I think in most case they would cause more problems than they would solve
[2012-01-08 20:29:34] <Mith> I was arguing for it in one specific case.
[2012-01-08 20:29:41] <Mith> In this discussion, I'm 1
[2012-01-08 20:29:58] <Amroth> I don't really mind.
[2012-01-08 20:30:23] <KingAragorn> Is everyone in favour of option 1?
[2012-01-08 20:30:25] <Amroth> I was against a subpage when it was suggested, but I don't think it's bad.
[2012-01-08 20:30:35] <Morgan> What's important for me, is that readers can easily find the information they seek (or the info we suspect a reader would seek)
[2012-01-08 20:30:36] <Gamling> Rather than a subpage a "See Also" is useful when the contents of a subpage justify a whole separate article.
[2012-01-08 20:31:24] <Gamling> I'm in favor of option 1 unless there is some very specific, good reason for a see-also subpage.
[2012-01-08 20:32:11] <Mith> +!!
[2012-01-08 20:32:15] <Mith> +1!*
[2012-01-08 20:32:29] <Ederchil> +1
[2012-01-08 20:32:37] <KingAragorn> OK, do people want to go with option one apart from in exceptional cases like Gandalf#Names?
[2012-01-08 20:33:02] <Gamling> Yes.
[2012-01-08 20:33:09] <Amroth> Aye
[2012-01-08 20:33:10] <Ederchil> I think G/N should/could be reworked back into the article.
[2012-01-08 20:33:56] <KingAragorn> Well, I was going to say that Gandalf#Names needs substantial work and a significant amount of tidying up anyway
[2012-01-08 20:34:20] <Amroth> +1 KA
[2012-01-08 20:34:21] <Ederchil> agree, no cohesion. Just some old articles glued together
[2012-01-08 20:34:32] <Mith> It can stay where it is until sorted, I think
[2012-01-08 20:34:42] <KingAragorn> Excellent
[2012-01-08 20:34:46] <KingAragorn> Is everyone happy with this?
[2012-01-08 20:35:03] <Amroth> If we redirect to the correct header, yes.
[2012-01-08 20:35:09] <Gamling> Yes.
[2012-01-08 20:35:12] <Ederchil> Yes
[2012-01-08 20:35:18] <KingAragorn> (and, I think, we all want to redirect to the sub-page)
[2012-01-08 20:35:29] <KingAragorn> OK then
[2012-01-08 20:35:32] <Amroth> Currently we redirect the reader to a page, where the information about the names isn't.
[2012-01-08 20:35:47] <KingAragorn> We will sort that (he says...)
[2012-01-08 20:35:55] <KingAragorn> Next up is Morgan with "Articles starting with "A" or "An" - should they be sorted under the following letter (with defaultsort, like articles starting with "The")?"
[2012-01-08 20:36:18] <Ederchil> Makes sense.
[2012-01-08 20:36:33] <Gamling> Agreed.
[2012-01-08 20:36:59] <Morgan> Just a detail, but it needed to be sorted out.
[2012-01-08 20:37:04] <Mith> Sutis me
[2012-01-08 20:37:05] <KingAragorn> If it helps people find what they want within the categories, then I'm happy with it
[2012-01-08 20:37:29] <KingAragorn> OK, I think that's settled
[2012-01-08 20:37:46] <KingAragorn> Next is me again with "What can we do to stop scaring off new, particularly anonymous, editors"
[2012-01-08 20:38:15] <Ederchil> I'm very good at that. What was the deal with that guy anyway?
[2012-01-08 20:38:23] <Gamling> How many have been scared off?
[2012-01-08 20:38:50] <KingAragorn> Because at the moment I think we're scaring people off by simply reverting people's work without comment
[2012-01-08 20:39:28] <Morgan> I hope your question didn't derive from my http://tolkiengateway.net/w/index.php?title=Celtic&action=historysubmit&diff=182874&oldid=182718 ;)
[2012-01-08 20:39:31] <KingAragorn> It may be bad (unreferenced and whatever else), but we shouldn't just remove it
[2012-01-08 20:39:45] <KingAragorn> If it's atrocious, then we should remove it
[2012-01-08 20:40:00] <KingAragorn> But we should at least least a comment explaining why
[2012-01-08 20:40:14] <Ederchil> the problem with reverting it because it's unsourced is that we revert it to something that is, in many cases, also unsourced.
[2012-01-08 20:40:29] <KingAragorn> For things that are good but just unreferenced, perhaps we should just try and find the reference? (It's usually not too obscure)
[2012-01-08 20:40:42] <KingAragorn> Indeed
[2012-01-08 20:40:50] <Gamling> Agree
[2012-01-08 20:40:59] <Amroth> AGREE
[2012-01-08 20:41:24] <Ederchil> agree
[2012-01-08 20:41:28] <Gamling> Or ask them to provide references.
[2012-01-08 20:41:44] <Morgan> It depends, I would say. Something can "appear" to be good. I agree with KA only if it's a simple statement when one can easily just add a reference template.
[2012-01-08 20:42:01] <Morgan> I had that problem with the Celtic article.
[2012-01-08 20:42:10] <KingAragorn> Also, we should add some editing tips to this: http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/MediaWiki:Anoneditwarning
[2012-01-08 20:42:24] <KingAragorn> i.e. say something about references and link to help pages
[2012-01-08 20:42:46] <Amroth> yeah, I agree.
[2012-01-08 20:43:53] <KingAragorn> Has anyone else got any other ideas?
[2012-01-08 20:44:30] <Gamling> Add some greater explanations about adding categories to articles in the help page.
[2012-01-08 20:44:53] <Ederchil> What would need to be discussed?
[2012-01-08 20:45:27] <KingAragorn> Yeah, I haven't really looked at our help files much, but we should have a help file which lays out the basics of a page structure
[2012-01-08 20:45:49] <Morgan> Gamling, do you mean that it can be difficult, for new editors, to categorise articles?
[2012-01-08 20:46:13] <Gamling> When I first started I didn't see much about adding categories. I learned by looking at categories as I went along.
[2012-01-08 20:46:26] <Morgan> Yeah, I remember that too.
[2012-01-08 20:46:32] <Morgan> (when I was new!)
[2012-01-08 20:46:42] <Ederchil> long time ago.
[2012-01-08 20:46:54] <Ederchil> I can't even remember it...
[2012-01-08 20:46:59] <Morgan> ;)
[2012-01-08 20:47:21] * Mith feels old.
[2012-01-08 20:47:42] * KingAragorn feels like the second youngest here
[2012-01-08 20:47:52] <Gamling> Gamling IS old but he's still fairly new to TG.
[2012-01-08 20:48:03] <KingAragorn> :)
[2012-01-08 20:48:40] <KingAragorn> Right, I take it that there are no more suggestions
[2012-01-08 20:49:21] * Amroth is the youngest and still relatively new
[2012-01-08 20:49:22] <Morgan> Can you post messages to talk pages of anonymous editors?
[2012-01-08 20:49:31] <Ederchil> yes
[2012-01-08 20:49:37] <Morgan> ok
[2012-01-08 20:49:43] <KingAragorn> Yeah
[2012-01-08 20:49:46] <KingAragorn> Is there anything else that anyone wants to discuss?
[2012-01-08 20:49:54] <Amroth> But they don't have a user page, right?
[2012-01-08 20:50:21] <KingAragorn> They can do
[2012-01-08 20:50:40] <Morgan> Do we have to sticke with the header "Etymology"???
[2012-01-08 20:50:41] <KingAragorn> But MediaWiki usually links to their contributions page
[2012-01-08 20:50:41] <Ederchil> They can edit User:string.of.numbers
[2012-01-08 20:51:05] <Ederchil> except on some cases, like reverts
[2012-01-08 20:51:05] <Morgan> *stick
[2012-01-08 20:51:10] <KingAragorn> What's wrong with "Etymology"?
[2012-01-08 20:51:24] <Morgan> 1) It's a complicated word
[2012-01-08 20:51:44] <Morgan> 2) Ususally we provide an explanation of a name, not a proper etymology, in the section we label "Etymology"
[2012-01-08 20:52:09] <Morgan> 3) In long articles, where the concepts has many alternative names, it's hard to know where to put what concerning nomenclature
[2012-01-08 20:52:26] <KingAragorn> What do you propose as the alternative header?
[2012-01-08 20:52:32] <Morgan> Not sure
[2012-01-08 20:52:40] <Morgan> Nomenclature?
[2012-01-08 20:52:46] <Morgan> Is it unusual in English?
[2012-01-08 20:52:49] <Mith> That's far more complicated a word
[2012-01-08 20:52:52] <Ederchil> Onomastics? Nomenclature? I think I prefer Etym
[2012-01-08 20:53:05] <Morgan> How about just "Names"
[2012-01-08 20:53:06] <Mith> I use "Name(s) and Etymology" I think
[2012-01-08 20:53:08] <Morgan> or "Name"
[2012-01-08 20:53:11] <Gamling> Alternate Names?
[2012-01-08 20:53:15] <Ederchil> Names and titles?
[2012-01-08 20:53:21] <Mith> Alternative Names, surely, if anything. :p
[2012-01-08 20:53:43] <Amroth> I prefer Etymology or "Names and titles"
[2012-01-08 20:53:59] <KingAragorn> I'd prefer that we stick with current conventions
[2012-01-08 20:54:05] <Mith> Etymology is not an uncommon word in English
[2012-01-08 20:54:08] <Ederchil> +1 KA
[2012-01-08 20:54:36] <Gamling> +1 KA
[2012-01-08 20:54:47] <KingAragorn> Nomenclature is perhaps more uncommon
[2012-01-08 20:54:59] <Mith> Way more
[2012-01-08 20:55:06] <Morgan> So what is our current convention?
[2012-01-08 20:55:30] <Amroth> I think we use both Etymologry and "Names and Tittles"
[2012-01-08 20:55:33] <Amroth> Titles*
[2012-01-08 20:55:50] <Gamling> I like Tittles.
[2012-01-08 20:56:19] <Morgan> Why both?
[2012-01-08 20:56:33] <Morgan> I mean, why do we have two different sections?
[2012-01-08 20:56:53] <KingAragorn> Case in point, "Etymology" and "Other names and titles" is sufficient
[2012-01-08 20:57:12] <KingAragorn> On Sauron
[2012-01-08 20:57:15] <KingAragorn> !
[2012-01-08 20:57:40] <KingAragorn> http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Sauron#Etymology
[2012-01-08 20:58:55] <KingAragorn> They're clearly distinct, I think
[2012-01-08 20:59:11] <Gamling> So it's "Etymology" when the origin of the main word is being discussed and "Other Names and Title" when alternate names are shown. Makes sense.
[2012-01-08 20:59:28] <KingAragorn> Yeah
[2012-01-08 20:59:30] <Ederchil> Yes.
[2012-01-08 20:59:31] <KingAragorn> Exactly
[2012-01-08 20:59:58] <KingAragorn> Morgan, what do you think?
[2012-01-08 21:00:30] <Morgan> That we all agree upon that "Etymology" is just for the main word
[2012-01-08 21:00:47] <KingAragorn> Yeah
[2012-01-08 21:00:59] <KingAragorn> Are you happy?
[2012-01-08 21:01:33] <Morgan> Kind of. It's difficult.
[2012-01-08 21:01:59] <KingAragorn> What are you not happy with?
[2012-01-08 21:02:04] <KingAragorn> Just the naming?
[2012-01-08 21:02:29] <Morgan> Yep
[2012-01-08 21:02:54] <KingAragorn> So you're still not happy with the "Etymology" header?
[2012-01-08 21:02:56] <Amroth> Anyway, I go to bed. Tomorrow will be the first school day of this year.
[2012-01-08 21:03:01] <KingAragorn> Good night!
[2012-01-08 21:03:17] <Ederchil> good night.
[2012-01-08 21:03:21] <Gamling> Sleep well.
[2012-01-08 21:03:34] <Morgan> It's okey. But I don't like it short articles where we provide no etymology at all, just an explanation of the meaning of a word.
[2012-01-08 21:03:39] <Morgan> *in
[2012-01-08 21:03:39] <Amroth> Thanks
[2012-01-08 21:03:42] <Amroth> Bye
[2012-01-08 21:03:52] |<-- Amroth has left irc.tolkiengateway.net (Quit: http://www.mibbit.com ajax IRC Client)
[2012-01-08 21:04:23] <Morgan> But, I'm okay with it.
[2012-01-08 21:04:47] <KingAragorn> OK
[2012-01-08 21:04:55] <KingAragorn> Are there any other issues to discuss?
[2012-01-08 21:05:29] <Ederchil> I have one
[2012-01-08 21:05:47] <Ederchil> This came up with the Countdown project of Sauron
[2012-01-08 21:06:23] <Ederchil> Should we split up the adaptations section into movies/audio/video games/card games?
[2012-01-08 21:07:05] <Gamling> Subheadings would be good if there are more than one.
[2012-01-08 21:07:30] <KingAragorn> I think that would well
[2012-01-08 21:08:56] <Morgan> I guess the only drawback is that you don't see the chronology of the totality...
[2012-01-08 21:09:20] <KingAragorn> I don't think that's important
[2012-01-08 21:09:25] <Ederchil> but it's easier to search
[2012-01-08 21:09:30] <KingAragorn> Agreed
[2012-01-08 21:11:10] <KingAragorn> So, are we all happy with that?
[2012-01-08 21:11:14] <Morgan> Yes
[2012-01-08 21:11:17] <KingAragorn> OK
[2012-01-08 21:11:19] <Gamling> Yes
[2012-01-08 21:11:22] <Ederchil> I'll whip something up this week
[2012-01-08 21:11:29] <Morgan> good
[2012-01-08 21:11:31] <KingAragorn> Is there anything else to discuss?
[2012-01-08 21:11:42] <Ederchil> we could even use a dropbox for it
[2012-01-08 21:12:04] <KingAragorn> How do you mean?
[2012-01-08 21:12:41] <Ederchil> For every section. So you don't have to wade through all of Gandalf's RPG portrayals.
[2012-01-08 21:12:50] <Ederchil> before you get to the movies
[2012-01-08 21:13:43] <KingAragorn> I still don't understand it
[2012-01-08 21:13:45] <Morgan> Do we have an example of a dropbox on TG somewhere?
[2012-01-08 21:14:14] <Ederchil> I think I can explain it better when I have the examples made up
[2012-01-08 21:14:44] <KingAragorn> OK
[2012-01-08 21:15:42] <KingAragorn> You could make a forum page when you do, so everyone can see it and discuss if necessary
[2012-01-08 21:15:53] <Ederchil> I was thinking sandbox
[2012-01-08 21:16:02] <Ederchil> but forum works for me
[2012-01-08 21:16:10] <KingAragorn> Well, whatever, I don't mind
[2012-01-08 21:16:24] <KingAragorn> Is there anything else to discuss?
[2012-01-08 21:16:35] <Ederchil> Can't think of anything
[2012-01-08 21:16:45] <Gamling> Me neither
[2012-01-08 21:16:46] <Mith> Nop
[2012-01-08 21:17:23] <KingAragorn> OK, meeting adjourned!